People displaced by disasters - Global Estimates 2015Pa ra
gu ay
83 '6
00 ; 1
2, 08
0/ 1m
IDMC core project team Coordinator/lead author: Michelle Yonetani
Data modeller and statistician: Chris Lavell Researchers: Erica
Bower, Luisa Meneghetti, Kelly O’Connor
Co-authors IDMC: Sebastián Albuja, Alexandra Bilak, Justin
Ginnetti, Caroline Howard, Frederik Kok, Barbara McCallin, Marita
Swain, Wesli Turner and Nadine Walicki Partners: Marine Franck at
UNHCR, Ana Mosneaga at the UN University in Tokyo, Anton Santanen
at the UN Office for the Co- ordination of Humanitarian Affairs
(OCHA) and Greta Zeender at OCHA/Office of the Special Rapporteur
on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons.
With special thanks to The International Organisation for Migration
(IOM): Nuno Nunes, global CCCM cluster coordinator, and Aaron
Watts-Jones and Lorelle Yuen at Geneva headquarters, as well as
country staff in Afghanistan, Angola, Bolivia, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Botswana, Cambodia, China, Colombia, Croatia,
Dominican Republic, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Myanmar, Nepal,
Nicaragua, Niger, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Republic
of Korea, Serbia, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Tanzania for displacement
data contributions. And to Muhammad Abu Musa at the Nowabenki
Gonomukhi Foundation and Sajid Raihan at ActionAid in Bangladesh;
Carlos Arenas at Displacement Solutions and Juanita López at the
Adaptation Fund in Colombia; Damien Jusselme at JIPS in Geneva;
Samira Mouaci at the OHCHR Haiti and Peter Kioy at IOM Haiti;
Martin Sökefeld at the University of Munich; Bradley Mellicker at
IOM Philippines; David Rammler at Fair Share Housing and Timothy
Tracey at the Monmouth Polling Institute in the US.
Contributors IDMC: Dora Abdelghani, Martina Caterina, Guillaume
Charron, Anne-Kathrin Glatz, Kristel Guyon, Melanie
Kesmaecker-Wissing, Sarah Kilani, Johanna Klos, Anaïs Pagot,
Elizabeth J. Rushing and Clare Spurrell. NRC: Nina Birkeland,
Arvinn Gadgil and staff of offices in Afghanistan, Colombia,
Somalia, Pakistan and Chad. We would also like to thank the
following individuals and organisations for their support for our
research on protracted displace- ment: Roger Zetter at Oxford
University; Walter Kälin, Hannah Entwisle and Atle Solberg at the
Nansen Initiative; Jane Chun at UNICEF; Hollie Grant at the
University of British Columbia; François Gemenne at The Paris
Institute of Political Studies (Sciences Po); Elizabeth Ferris and
Megan Bradley at the Brookings Institution; Susan Martin at
Georgetown University; Mo Hamza at Copenhagen University; Alice
Thomas at Refugees International; Megan Passey at REACH Impact
Initiatives; Graham Saunders at IFRC/global shelter cluster; James
Morrissey and Marc Cohen at Oxfam; Dina Ionesco, Mariam Traore,
Daria Mokhnacheva and Sieun Lee at IOM’s Migration, Environment and
Climate Change (MECC) and Migration, Environment and Climate
Change: Evidence for Policy (MECLEP) projects; Ahmadi Gul Mohammad
at IOM Afghanistan; Sarat Dash and Jahangir Md Khaled at IOM
Bangladesh; Oudry Guenole at IOM Cambodia; Daniel Silva at IOM
Madagascar; Stuart Simpson at IOM Micronesia; Camila Rivero at IOM
Mozambique; Kieran Gorman-Best at IOM Myanmar; Prajwal Sharma at
IOM Nepal; Katherine Smalley at IOM Pakistan; Conrad Navidad at IOM
Philippines and Vedha Raniyam at IOM Sri Lanka.
Editor: Jeremy Lennard Design and layout: Rachel Natali Cover
photo: A man holds a family photograph as he stands among collapsed
buildings after a magnitude 6.3 earthquake struck Longtoushan
township of Ludian county, Yunnan province. At least 398 people
were killed and some 236,900 people were dis- placed from their
homes according to the Ministry of Civil Affairs. Photo:
REUTERS/Wong Campion, August 2014
With thanks IDMC’s work would not be possible without the generous
contributions of its funding partners. We would like to thank them
for their continuous support in 2014, and we extend particular
gratitude to the following contributors:
Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs, EuropeAid,
Liechtenstein’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway’s Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Sweden’s International Development Cooperation
Agency, Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, the UN
Refugee Agency (UNHCR), the UK’s Department for International
Development, the US Agency for International Development
(USAID).
Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre Norwegian Refugee Council
Chemin de Balexert 7–9 CH-1219 Châtelaine (Geneva) Tel: +41 22 799
0700, Fax: +41 22 799 0701
www.internal-displacement.org
Please note: The displacement estimates provided in this report are
based on data recorded in our disaster-induced displacement
database as of 1 June 2015. Our data is subject to revision and
updating based on ongoing monitoring, research and feedback.
Revisions to aggregate figures since the publication of the
previous year’s report are reflected here. Unless otherwise stated,
all figures of 10,000 and over have been rounded to the nearest
1,000; figures of less than 10,000 have been rounded to the nearest
100. The dataset for 2014 events is available for download from our
website: www.internal-displacement.org/global-figures Feedback is
welcome and requests for guidance in the use and interpretation of
the data are encouraged. Please contact us at
[email protected]
ContEnts Summary 8
1 Introduction 11
2 Conceptualising displacement in the context of disasters 13
2.1 Slow- versus rapid- onset disasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 13 2.2 The continuum from voluntary migration to forced
displacement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 14 2.3 Displacement risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.4 Reducing displacement risk. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Box 2.1: Slow-onset hazards and gradual processes associated with
climate change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Box
2.2: Dynamics and evacuation patterns associated with rapid-onset
hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.5 Patterns of movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 16
3 The global picture: scale, patterns and trends 19
Key findings and messages 3.1 Latest estimates . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.2 Displacement by hazard
type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.3 Variance
from year to year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.4 Displacement trend from 1970 to 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 22
Box 3.1: “Super” El Niño and displacement in 1998 - a year of
extremes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 23 3.5 Trends in exposure and vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 24
4 Geographical distribution and the biggest events 29
Key findings and messages 4.1 Regions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.2 Countries. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Spotlight: Bosnia and Herzegovina - Doubly displaced by conflict
and disaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.3 Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 35
Box 4.1: The Iquique earthquake and tsunami in Chile . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35 4.4 The big three: China, India and the Philippines . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 36 4.5 Small but significant: impacts on small island
developing states (SIDS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 41 4.6 Multiple hazards in fragile and
conflict-affected states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Spotlight: Afghanistan - Blurred lines between multiple drivers of
displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
5 Mind your assumptions: Protracted displacement following
disasters 47
Key findings and messages 5.1 Conceptualising protracted
displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.2 The data and
knowledge blind spot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.3
Checking common assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50 5.4 The problem with assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 50 5.5 Evidence to the contrary . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 51 5.6 Leaving no-one behind . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 5.7 Spotlight cases . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Papua New Guinea: Manam islanders still displaced ten years after
volcanic eruption Indonesia: Sidoarjo mudflow displacement
unresolved after nine years Bangladesh: Six years after cyclone
Aila, prolonged and repeated displacement continues Colombia: The
long road to relocation for Gramalote’s IDPs Haiti: Chronic
vulnerability and protracted displacement five years after the
earthquake Pakistan: Protracted displacement from flooded land in
Hunza valley Japan: Living in limbo four years after the Tohoku
earthquake, tsunami and nuclear accident disaster US: Displaced
people in New Jersey still seeking solutions after superstorm
Sandy
6 The post-2015 global policy agenda 75
Key findings and messages 6.1 Sustainable development for all:
Including those displaced by disasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 6.2 Down to business:
Implementing the Sendai framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 6.3 Heading for
Paris: Displacement in climate change negotiations . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 6.4 Towards
Istanbul: Transforming humanitarian action . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
78
Annexes 79
Annex A: Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 79 Annex B: The largest displacement events of 2014 . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 88 Annex C: Protracted cases ongoing in 2014/2015 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 92
References 100
IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies
IOM International Organisation for Migration
ISO International Organisation for Standardisation
LSE London School of Economics and Political Science
NGO Non-governmental organisation
UNHCR UN Refugee Agency
USAID United States Agency for International Development
FIGUrEs, tABLEs AnD mAPs Figure 2.1: How climate change, disaster
risk reduction and climate change adaptation can influence
displacement . . . . . . 15 Figure 3.1: The global scale of
displacement caused by disasters, 2008 to 2014 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 3.2: Global
displacement by type of hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure
3.3: Displacement by scale of event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21 Figure 3.4: Modelled global displacement trend for 1970 to 2014
(relative to population). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22 Figure 3.5: Global displacement and population by World Bank
income group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 25 Figure 3.6: Displacement by World Bank regions and income
groups, 2008 to 2014. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 26 Figure 3.7: Displacement in countries grouped by Human
Development Index values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 27 Figure 4.1: Displacement by macro-region, 2014 and
2008-2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 30 Figure 4.2: Displacement by region, as defined by
the World Bank. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 4.3: Countries with the highest levels
of displacement, 2014 and 2008-2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 32 Figure 4.4: The 20 largest displacement events
of 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 4.5: Displacement in China, India
and the Philippines, 2008 to 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 4.6: Displacement by hazard
type in China, India and the Philippines, 2008 to 2014. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 4.7: Philippines - Timeline
of displacement events in 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 4.8: Displacement in
SIDS relative to population size, 2008 to 2014 (per million
inhabitants) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 4.9:
Displacement in fragile and conflict-affected states, 2008-2014 . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure
4.10: Countries with new displacement associated with both natural
hazards and conflict, 2014 and 2010-2014 . . . 43 Figure 4.11:
Drivers of displacement in Herat and Helmand . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure
4.12: Settlement intentions of displaced households in Herat and
Helmand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 5.1: Eight cases of protracted displacement following
disasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 53 Figure 5.2: Displacement timeline following the Manam
volcanic eruption in 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 55 Figure 5.3: Displacement patterns and vulnerability in
flood-prone areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 59 Figure 5.4: Movement of IDPs from areas affected
by cyclone Aila . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 60 Figure 5.5: Total number of people displaced
by the Haiti earthquake disaster from January 2010 to March 2015. .
. . . . . 63 Figure 5.6: IDPs’ reasons for leaving camps between
July 2010 and March 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 63 Figure 5.7: Comparing access to key goods and services
pre- and post-earthquake (better or worse; % change) . . . . . . .
63 Figure 5.8: Displacement following the Thoku disaster from
nuclear contaminated areas and earthquake/tsunami affected areas,
2011-2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 68 Figure 5.9: New Jersey families displaced
following superstorm Sandy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Figure 5.10: People hardest hit in New
Jersey one and two years after superstorm Sandy . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 71 Figure 5.11: Needs of the population
hardest hit by superstorm Sandy by displacement status . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Figure 5.12: Financial assistance
allocated for the repair of homes damaged by superstorm Sandy –
owners compared to tenants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Figure
5.13: Response to homeowner applications for financial housing
assistance - by applicants’ race and ethnicity . . . . 72
Map 3.1: Global population exposure to natural hazards . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 24 Map 4.1: Philippines regions affected by disaster-related
displacement in 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 38 Map 4.2: Chinese provinces affected by disaster-related
displacement in 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 39 Map 4.3: Largest displacements in India and
neighbouring countries, 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 40 Map 5.1: Protracted displacement following
disasters worldwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Map 5.2: Sidoarjo mudflow affected
areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Map 5.3: Ongoing
displacement in the Hunza valley following the 2010 Attabad
landslide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Map 5.4:
Mandatory evacuation zones in Fukushima prefecture . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Table 3.1: Annual variance in disasters displacing more than a
million people, 2008 to 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 21 Table 3.2: Large displacement events in 1998. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 23 Table 3.3: Global population trends . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 5.1: Checking and challenging common
assumptions about protracted displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 48 Table 5.2: Number of Hunza valley IDPs . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 65 Table A.1: Typology of natural hazards . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
8 Global Estimates 2015
sUmmAry Since 2008, an average of 26.4 million people have been
displaced from their homes each year by disasters brought on by
natural hazards- equivalent to one person displaced every
second.
The time is opportune to ensure the causes and conse- quences of
this urgent issue are better addressed. Policy makers are pushing
for concerted progress across humanitarian and sustainable
development goals, including disaster risk reduction and action on
climate change. This annual report, the sixth of its kind, aims to
equip governments, local authorities, civil society organisations
and international and regional institutions with evidence relevant
to these key post-2015 agenda.
Our report draws on information from a wide range of sourc- es,
including governments, UN and international organisations, NGOs and
media, to provide up-to-date statistics on the inci- dence of
displacement caused by disasters associated with geophysical and
weather-related hazards such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions,
floods and storms.
The global data does not cover displacement related to drought and
gradual processes of environmental degradation, nor does it reflect
the complexity and diversity of people’s indi- vidual situations or
how they evolve over time.
This year, we have dedicated a section to protracted dis- placement
in the aftermath of disasters - a significant knowl- edge blind
spot that requires increased attention from govern- ments, the UN,
the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and other
international and civil society organisations.
The key findings and messages from each section of the report are
summarised below.
The global picture: scale, patterns and trends
Latest estimates More than 19 3 million people were displaced by
disasters in 100 countries in 2014
Since 2008, an average of 26 4 million people have been displaced
by disasters each year - equivalent to one person every
second.
Displacement by hazard type 17 5 million people were displaced by
disasters brought on by weather-related hazards in 2014, and 1 7
million by geophysical hazards.
An average of 22 5 million people have been displaced each year by
climate or weather-related disasters in the last seven years -
equivalent to 62,000 people every day.
The largest increases in displacement are related to weather and
climate-related hazards, and floods in particular.
Climate change, in tandem with people’s increasing exposure and
vulnerability, is expected to magnify this trend, as extreme
weather events become more frequent and intense in the coming
decades.
Variance from year to year The significant fluctuation from year to
year in the number of people forced to flee their homes by
disasters is driven by relatively infrequent but huge events that
displace millions of people at a time.
Displacement trend from 1970 to 2014 Latest historical models
suggest that even after adjusting for population growth, the
likelihood of being displaced by a dis- aster today is 60 per cent
higher than it was four decades ago.
1998 was a peak year for displacement, which correlates with the
strongest iteration of El Niño on record. Extreme weather events
associated with it included hurricane Mitch, which devastated
several countries in Central America.
Trends in exposure and vulnerability The occurrence of displacement
closely mirrors people’s ex- posure to hazards around the world.
Exposure is increasing because ever growing numbers of vulnerable
people live in areas prone to hazards
Two key drivers of exposure and vulnerability are urban popu-
lation growth in developing countries, and economic growth
The urban population in developing countries has increased by 326
per cent since 1970. This rapid growth has for the most part been
unplanned and poorly governed, leading to high exposure and
vulnerability. Middle-income countries bear the brunt of the
phenomenon
People in low-income countries are more vulnerable still, but
relatively fewer people are exposed to hazards. That said,
population projections suggest that exposure will increase in many
low-income countries over the coming decades.
The relatively low vulnerability of high-income countries does not
mean that they are not affected. Around 1.8 million people were
displaced in high-income countries in 2014, and this is explained
by three factors: » All countries are vulnerable to the most
extreme hazards » Inequality within high-income countries makes
displace-
ment a particular concern for people less well off and those
subject to discrimination and marginalisation
» Effective early warning systems and disaster responses save
lives, but increase displacement among survivors as a protective
measure
Geographical distribution and the biggest events
Displacement by region and country Asia is home to 60 per cent of
the world’s population, but ac- counted for 87 per cent of the
people displaced by disasters worldwide in 2014. 16 7 million
people were forced to flee their homes in the region.
9People displaced by disasters
» Eleven of the 20 countries worst affected by displacement over
the last seven years are in Asia.
Europe experienced double its average level of displacement for the
past seven years in 2014, with 190,000 people displaced, most of
them by flooding in the Balkans.
Displacement in Africa was three times lower than average in 2014
in absolute terms, but many African countries experi- enced high
levels relative to their population size. » The highest level of
displacement in relative terms in 2014
was in Sudan, where rainy season floods displaced 159,000
people.
In Chile, one of the largest displacements of the year high-
lighted the benefit of investment in disaster prevention and
preparedness. Around 970,000 people fled low-lying coastal areas in
response to an 8.2 magnitude offshore earthquake and tsunami
warning in April. Most people were able to return home the
following day.
Developing countries are consistently the worst affected, with
almost 175 million people displaced since 2008, account- ing for 95
per cent of the global total. The figure for 2014 was 17.4 million,
or 91 per cent of the global total.
The big three: China, India and the Philippines China, India and
the Philippines experienced the highest levels of displacement in
absolute terms, both in 2014 and for the 2008 to 2014 period.
Disasters related to floods, storms, earthquakes and volcanic
eruptions in the three countries accounted for 15 of the 20 largest
displacements in 2014.
Multiple and repeated displacements in the same parts of the three
countries point to areas of particularly high exposure and
vulnerability.
The Philippines was among the three worst-affected countries in
relative and absolute terms, both in 2014 and over the 2008 to 2014
period.
Large-scale evacuations prompted by two category-three typhoons in
the Philippines caused the largest displacements worldwide for the
second year running in 2014.
Small but significant: impacts on small island developing states
(SIDS) Their populations are relatively small, but SIDS are dispro-
portionately affected by displacement associated with floods,
storms and earthquakes.
Between 2008 and 2014, they experienced levels three times higher
than the global average, relative to their population sizes.
Twelve per cent of the countries where we recorded displace- ment
related to disasters in 2014 were SIDS, of which five were among
the 20 worst-affected countries worldwide in relative terms.
Cyclone Ian in Tonga caused the second largest displacement
worldwide in relative terms in 2014. Only 5,300 people were forced
to flee their homes, but they accounted for five per cent of the
island’s population.
Haiti and Cuba have had the highest levels of displacement among
SIDS over the past seven years in both relative and absolute terms,
caused by earthquakes, floods and storms.
Multiple hazards in fragile and conflict-affected states A complex
mix of overlapping hazards contribute to displace- ment and
determine patterns of movement and needs in fragile and
conflict-affected countries. This makes an integrated analysis
particularly important as the basis for policymaking and
planning.
Modelled global displacement trend for 1970 to 2014 (per million
inhabitants)
Pe op
le d
isp la
ce d
IDMC annual dataSource: IDMC data as of 1 June 2015
The scale of global displacement by disasters, 2008-2014
Pe op
le d
isp la
ce d
(m illi
on s)
10 Global Estimates 2015
Countries significantly affected by displacement related to both
conflict and natural hazards in 2014 included India, Pakistan, the
Philippines, South Sudan and Sudan
All fragile and conflict-affected states, as defined by the World
Bank, experienced displacement associated with natural haz- ards
between 2008 and 2014. More than 750,000 people were displaced by
disasters in these countries in 2014 alone
Mind your assumptions: Protracted displacement following disasters
Relatively little is known about protracted displacement situ-
ations following disasters They are poorly monitored and little
reported on. A sample we have collated of 34 ongoing cases accounts
for more than 715,000 people stuck in limbo, and points to the
likelihood of hundreds of thousands more who have not yet been
recorded.
The common assumption that displacement following disas- ters is
short-term and temporary does not hold true in many cases The cases
we identified highlight the plight of people who have been living
in protracted displacement for up to 26 years.
People in such situations receive little attention and are likely
to be left behind in long-term recovery, disaster risk reduction
and development processes. Better data and further research is
needed to create a solid evidence base for policymakers’ and
responders’ decisions.
Hazards are diverse in their nature and dynamics. Some persist for
long periods and can become permanent barriers to return The
repeated impacts of frequent short-lived hazards on vul- nerable
communities can also lead to protracted displacement.
Displacement following disasters is often fraught with complex and
political obstacles to solutions. Obstacles frequently encountered
include access to land and discrimination against vulnerable and
marginalised groups. Addressing the long- lasting social and
psychological consequences of displace- ment is as important as the
physical rebuilding of homes and infrastructure.
Most of the cases of protracted displacement we identified are in
low and middle-income developing countries, but there are also
significant examples in rich countries, such as the US and Japan.
Vulnerable and marginalised people in high- income countries also
risk being excluded from solutions.
Governments should prioritise measures to advance solutions and
strengthen the resilience of people whose displacement risks
becoming protracted, or has already become so. They in- clude
people whose former homes have become permanently inaccessible or
unsafe, informal settlers, poor tenants and people who face
discrimination based on their class, ethnicity, gender or age.
Interventions should be adapted to their specific needs.
When displaced people move on to another location during or after
the emergency phase of a response, their situation should be
verified. They should not be allowed to drop off the radar as
“residual caseloads” when humanitarian priorities shift towards
longer-term recovery and development.
Local authorities, civil society networks and community-based
organisations should be mobilised and supported to help iden- tify
and monitor cases of protracted displacement. This is im- portant,
given that many of those affected are all but invisible, because
they are dispersed among wider populations and in urban
areas.
The post-2015 global policy agenda The time is opportune for
displacement associated with dis- asters to be better addressed in
major global policy agenda and their implementation in the
post-2015 period They in- clude the Sustainable Development Goals,
the Sendai Frame- work for Disaster Risk Reduction, action on
climate change under the UNFCCC and preparatory work for the 2016
World Humanitarian Summit.
A comprehensive approach to displacement will help to forge strong
links and continuity between these initiatives, and sup- port the
implementation of global and national commitments.
Displacement can no longer be considered as a primarily
humanitarian issue, nor one that is specific to conflict situa-
tions. In most countries affected it has multiple and overlap- ping
causes, and addressing it requires close coordination of
humanitarian and development policy and action within and between
governments.
The increasing number of people displaced and at risk of becoming
trapped in protracted situations following disasters underscores
the urgent need to include people displaced or at risk of becoming
so in sustainable and inclusive develop- ment measures
Improved monitoring and data on displacement is needed to measure
the achievement of national and global policy targets for inclusive
and sustainable development, disaster risk reduction and
management, and adaptation to climate change.
In order to prioritise resources and target responses to where they
are most needed, a common framework for collecting, interpreting
and comparing displacement data should be established between
government and partner organisations and across different
timeframes.
Special attention should be paid to collecting data disag- gregated
by gender, age and specific vulnerabilities, and to monitoring the
situation of people caught in long-lasting or chronic
displacement.
111 | Introduction
IntroDUCtIon Since 2008, an average of 26.4 million people have
been displaced from their homes each year by disasters brought on
by natural hazards- equivalent to one person displaced every
second.
The time is opportune to ensure the causes and consequences of this
urgent issue are better addressed. Policy makers are pushing for
concerted progress across humanitarian and sustainable develop-
ment goals, including disaster risk reduc- tion and action on
climate change. This annual report, the sixth of its kind, aims to
equip governments, local authorities, civil society organisations
and international and regional institutions with evidence relevant
to these key post-2015 agenda.
Our report draws on information from a wide range of sources,
including govern- ments, UN and international organisations, NGOs
and media, to provide up-to-date statistics on the incidence of
displace- ment caused by disasters associated with geophysical and
weather-related hazards such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions,
floods and storms. The global data does not cover displacement
related to drought and gradual processes of environmental
degradation, nor does it reflect the com- plexity and diversity of
people’s individual situations or how they evolve over time.
This year, we have dedicated a sec- tion to long-lasting and
protracted dis- placement in the aftermath of disasters - a
significant knowledge blind spot that requires increased attention
from gov- ernments, the UN, the International Red Cross and Red
Crescent Movement and other international and civil society or-
ganisations. Section five of the report pre- sents our initial
findings from a review of literature, interviews and other evidence
as a starting point for further monitor- ing. We discuss the issue
alongside eight case studies of current situations in Bangladesh,
Colombia, Haiti, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea and
the United States. These are summarised in annex C along with a
broader sample of 34 ongoing displacement situations.
Section three presents the global picture today. We provide
estimates and analyses of events in 2014 and over the 2008-2014
period, and include the disag- gregation of global data by hazard
type, annual variance in displacement pat- terns, and the updating
of our modelled historical estimates to show the trend in
displacement over a 45-year period. The section also examines
global trends in exposure and vulnerability, focusing on urban
population and economic growth.
A girl stands on the outskirts of Belet Wayne IDP camp, Somalia.
Belet Wayne, Somalia’s fifth largest city, is home to people
displaced by floods that affected the region in late 2012. (Photo:
UN Photo/Tobin Jones, February 2013) In October 2014, thousands
more were rendered homeless by floods again.
The geographical distribution of dis- placement across regions and
countries is presented in section four. It examines the largest
events of 2014 and zooms in on the Iquique earthquake and tsunami
in Chile as well as the flood disaster in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Country and regional data is further analysed in relation to the
three countries most consistently affected by disaster displacement
globally, China, India and the Philippines. The section also
focuses on Small Island Developing States (SIDS) as countries
disproportion- ately impacted by displacement, as well as multiple
hazards in fragile and conflict- affected states, including a
special spot- light on the case of Afghanistan.
In the concluding section of the report, we discuss the positioning
of displacement associated with disasters in key global pol- icy
agendas. These include a new global framework on disaster risk
reduction for 2015-2030, which was adopted by UN member states in
March as a successor to the Hyogo Framework for Action; negotia-
tions ahead of the Paris conference on cli- mate change at the end
the year (COP21); the final stages of work on proposals for new
Sustainable Development Goals to be presented for endorsement in
Septem- ber; and preparations for the 2016 World Humanitarian
Summit. A comprehensive approach to displacement will help to forge
strong links and continuity between these initiatives, and support
the implementation of global and national commitments.
The overall conceptual framework and the terms and definitions that
inform our analysis of displacement associated with disasters are
presented in section two of the report. Our methodology for data
col- lection, the development of displacement estimates, modelling
and other qualita- tive research, as well as scope and limita-
tions of the report are further explained in annex A1. A
comprehensive list of the largest displacements in 2014 is provided
in annex B. Our full 2014 dataset is avail- able for download from
our website at www.internal-displacement.org.
1
Hail storm at the displacement camp in Kibabi, Masisi, North Kivu.
Photo: IDMC/M. Kesmaecker-Wissing, March 2015
12 Global Estimates 2015
The terms and concepts that inform IDMC’s collection and
interpretation of quantitative and qualitative data on displacement
associated with natural hazards and the disasters they trigger are
discussed below. They represent evolving knowledge that draws on
the wide range of sources we use for our monitoring and analysis
generally, and for this global report in particular.
Standard or widely accepted interna- tional definitions are
available for some, and these are expanded upon from the
perspective of different types of natu- ral hazards, disasters and
displacement. Others are more fluid and less specific. All need to
be carefully interpreted ac- cording to the contexts and
perspectives from which they were developed and in which they are
applied.
Disaster is defined as the “serious disruption of the functioning
of a com- munity or a society causing widespread human, material,
economic or environ- mental losses which exceed the ability of the
affected community or society to cope using its own resources”.1
They are the result of a combination of risk factors that can be
summarised as the exposure of people and assets to hazards, and
their pre-existing vulnerability to them.
Hazard refers to the potential oc- currence of a natural or
human-induced physical event or trend or physical im- pacts2, that
may pose a severe threat to people and assets that are exposed to
them. “Natural” hazards are time-bound
events or gradual processes and condi- tions that originate in the
natural environ- ment. The intensity and predictability of hazards
varies greatly.
Exposure refers to “[t]he presence of people, livelihoods, species
or ecosys- tems, environmental functions, services, and resources,
infrastructure, or eco- nomic, social, or cultural assets in places
and settings that could be adversely af- fected.”3
Vulnerability refers to “the propensity or predisposition to be
adversely affect- ed”. It encompasses a variety of concepts and
elements “including sensitivity or sus- ceptibility to harm and
lack of capacity to cope and adapt”.4
Humanitarians tend to use the term “disaster”, or “natural
disaster” in relation to crises triggered by or associated with
hazards that originate in the natural en- vironment, as is the
usage in this report. While they are more likely to be aware of
very intensive hazard events, such as a major earthquake, less
intense but more frequent events can result in localised disasters
for vulnerable communities, particularly if the hazards are
recurrent. Disaster also applies to contexts where multiple types
of hazard contribute to a disaster. Examples include the reac- tor
meltdown and radiation leak from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
power plant in the aftermath of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and
tsunami, and numerous situations in which populations are also
affected by conflict.
in the context of disasters
ConCEPtUALIsInG DIsPLACEmEnt
Slow- versus rapid- onset disasters
Disasters and related hazards are commonly categorised as either
slow- or rapid-onset, but their dynamics are better understood as a
continuum. At one end sit short-lived trigger events or hazards
such as earthquakes that occur with little or no notice, and at the
other gradually developing and long-lasting processes such as
drought and river bank erosion, which act as stressors on people’s
living conditions and means to survival. Some individual hazard
types, such as floods, include events with different dynam- ics.
Flash floods tend to occur with little prior warning and pass
relatively quickly, while other riverine floods develop more
slowly. Floodwaters may make areas in- accessible for months.
Different types of explosive or effusive volcanic eruptions can
occur with little or no notice, while others can be predicted ahead
of time, producing ash, toxic gases, fast moving floods of hot
water, debris and lava within hours to days. Eruptions may continue
to threaten exposed areas over extended periods and require
repeated evacuations. Other hazards may occur as a cascade, such as
tsunamis, landslides, fires and aftershocks following a major
earthquake, or flooding made more extreme when it follows a period
of drought. These dynam- ics have a bearing on how displacement
occurs, as further discussed below.
Displacement is the forced or obliged movement, evacuation or
relocation of in-
2
132 | Conceptualising displacement in the context of
disasters
dividuals or groups of people from their homes or places of
habitual residence in order to avoid the threat or impact of a
disaster.5 It refers to situations where people are forced to move
by other peo- ple and organisations, including local or national
authorities, but also when people act of their own volition in
response to the threats and severe conditions they face.
The continuum from voluntary migration to forced displacement
In practice, displacement sits within a continuum including
“(predominantly) forced displacement” and “(predomi- nantly)
voluntary migration”, as well as “(voluntary or forced) planned
reloca- tion” (Nansen Initiative, 2014).6 Displace- ment tends to
emphasise “push” factors to leave and migration emphasises “pull”
factors at the intended destination, while each is a mixture of
both. Put another way, displacement is a more reactive measure of
last resort or a survival response to severe and immediate threats.
Migra- tion is a longer-term strategic decision to move to where
there are safer condi- tions and better livelihood prospects (see
figure 2.1). Movements at either end of the continuum may put
vulnerable peo- ple in a more precarious situation than if they had
stayed in their place of origin if they are not sufficiently
protected and supported. Well informed, prepared and managed
movements, however, enable people to adapt to worsening conditions
and save lives.
The difference between voluntary and forced population movements is
particularly difficult to distinguish during slowly evolving
disasters. In the face of rapidly developing hazards, people are
often forced to flee their homes with lit- tle notice in response
to the immediate threat. Others may be displaced later as the
disaster develops and new threats evolve or initial coping
strategies begin to fail. Their immediacy as shocks that trig- ger
acute points of crisis make it easier to link them to any
displacement caused. Large groups of people on the move soon before
or after a hazard’s impact are also easier to identify.
Gradual and long-lasting hazards such as drought or processes of
envi- ronmental degradation such as soil ero-
sion tend to act indirectly as stressors on living conditions,
along with a range of other socio-economic, political and cultural
drivers of exposure and vulner- ability. They allow people more
time to consider and take steps to avoid, miti- gate and adapt to
impacts on their homes, livelihoods and communities. They may
choose to migrate well before they face an acute crisis, which
blurs the distinc- tion between forced displacement and voluntary
migration.
For the poorest and most vulnerable, whose survival options may be
severely circumscribed by remaining in their homes, it could be
argued that their de- cision to leave always constitutes a form of
displacement regardless of the haz- ards that contributed to it. In
slow-onset situations, people may flee in smaller numbers and over
longer periods of time in response to a gradual change in con-
ditions and are, therefore, less easy to identify and track. Slowly
evolving dis- asters such as the Sidoarjo mud flow in Indonesia
(see section 5) may make return impossible even in the long-term,
because they make land permanently ir- redeemable.
Displacement risk As with disaster risk, the risk of dis-
placement can be expressed in relation to hazards, exposure and
vulnerability: The likelihood, severity and nature of a hazard or
combination of hazards oc- curring over time. According to the best
scientific evidence, climate change is expected to alter normal
variability in the weather and make some hazards more severe and
frequent7
The exposure of people and their homes, property and livelihoods to
haz- ards before a disaster and both during and after their
displacement as they move from one location to another
People’s pre-existing and evolving vul- nerability to the impact of
hazards be- fore, during and after their displacement
These factors not only increase the likelihood of people becoming
dis- placed. They also affect evolving threats to their security
and human rights while displaced, the duration of their displace-
ment and the obstacles displaced people
face in their efforts to achieve durable solutions. This is because
displacement puts people at greater risk of impover- ishment and
discrimination, and creates specific protection needs.16 Specific
problems they face include landlessness; joblessness; homelessness
and worsen- ing housing conditions; economic, social and
psychological marginalisation; food insecurity; increased morbidity
and mor- tality through trauma and vulnerability to insanitary
conditions and disease; loss of access to common property; and the
disruption or destruction of social and economic support
networks.17 Many of these challenges are illustrated through cases
highlighted in sections three, four and five of this report.
Reducing displacement risk Exposure and vulnerability are
largely
the product of human activity and they can be reduced by government
and community-based measures that reduce the risk of displacement.
Such measures include the application of building stand- ards to
make homes and infrastructure disaster resistant, and strengthening
the resilience of communities and livelihoods so that they are
better able to withstand or adapt to the hazards they face. Land
zoning may also be enforced to minimise the development of
settlements in areas that face frequent, severe and increas- ing
exposure to hazards. As a last resort, after all other options have
failed and community resilience has significantly eroded, measures
may also include the permanent relocation of people’s homes away
from areas where their exposure to hazards is high.18
To be effective, approaches need to be tailored to the specific
contexts in which people are or may be displaced, and the different
capacities and vulner- abilities of the communities, households and
individuals concerned. Measures should also address the
disproportionate level of risk faced by poor and marginal- ised
communities and households, which have fewest resources both to
mitigate displacement and recover from it through the achievement
of durable solutions (see section five).19
How “natural” a hazard is as a contrib- uting factor to
displacement is a complex
14 Global Estimates 2015
Box 2.1: Slow-onset hazards and gradual processes associated with
climate change
Even gradual and relatively modest changes in climate can affect
the frequency and intensity of hazards and communi- ties’
vulnerability to them (see figure 2.1). Higher temperatures
increase the risk of both drought and episodes of heavy rainfall,
also known as “extreme precipitation events”, while rising sea
levels make storm surges worse and increase the risk of coastal
flooding. Lower agricultural yields associated with gradual changes
in climate undermine rural livelihoods and erode communities’
capacity to cope with shocks.
Sea level rise Rising sea levels are expected to become a
significant
driver of future displacement, particularly in small island states
and low-lying coastal areas. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC)’s Fifth Assessment Report notes that “it is virtually
certain that global mean sea level rise rates are accelerating”,
with projected increases by 2100 ranging from 0.35 to 0.70
metres.
Rising sea levels will aggravate the effects of swell waves, storm
surges and other drivers of severe sea-flood and erosion risk. Wave
over-wash is also confidently predicted to degrade fresh
groundwater resources.8 IPCC’s report notes that tens of millions
of people could find themselves at risk of permanent displacement
as their home areas become uninhabitable.
“Twelve million people could become displaced by sea level rise by
2030 in four major coastal areas in the U.S. Globally, and without
investment in adaptation measures, a rise of 0.5m in sea level
implies a likely land loss of 0.877 million km2 by 2100, displacing
as many as 72 million peo- ple. A more extreme 2.0m change in sea
level would result in the loss of 1.789 million km2, displacing 187
million peo- ple, or 2.4 per cent of global population, mostly in
Asia.”9
Such scenarios are not foregone conclusions. The scale of
displacement will also depend on the extent to which countries and
communities adapt to the threats posed by rising sea levels. Making
communities more resilient should
reduce, or at least delay the onset of such forced movements. That
said, research published since the IPCC report has
found that a section of the western Antarctic ice sheet has gone
into “irreversible retreat”.10 This could mean sea lev- els are
rising more quickly than previously thought, making IPCC’s
scenarios overly optimistic. For those unwilling to relocate,
adaptation would not be a choice but a necessity.
Displacement in small island states As with other hazards, the fact
that sea level rise is one of
a number of inter-related and dynamic processes that influ- ence
population movements makes it difficult to estimate future
displacement associated with the phenomenon. The IPCC notes, for
example, that climate change and its impacts are taking place at
the same time as increases in rural to urban migration. This often
results in squatter settlements in highly exposed locations that
lack basic amenities, leaving inhabitants highly vulnerable to
climate risks.11
In small island states, other gradual changes and process- es such
as the warming of sea surface temperatures, ocean acidification and
the depletion of oceanic oxygen also have the potential to
influence mobility patterns indirectly, given their im- pacts on
livelihoods. Such processes are expected to contribute to coral
bleaching, threatening both fish stocks and tourism.
Affected communities may also suffer the impacts on agricultural
production of the salination of groundwater and soil associated
with rising sea levels and climate variability in terms of drought
and floods. This may force them to import more food and drinking
water, which in turn increases their vulnerability to price spikes
and pre-existing pressures to migrate for economic reasons.
The IPCC concludes that more research is needed on the impact of
rising sea levels and other climate change impacts on small island
displacement, and on the adaptation strate- gies appropriate for
different types of island under different scenarios.12 More
sophisticated approaches are required to accommodate such
complexity and respond to climate change in a multidimensional way
as one of a number of stressors on small island states.
The impact of different adaptation strategies on displace- ment and
migration will be influenced by the scale of climate change and
human factors such as their cultural and social acceptability and
communities’ confidence in their effective- ness.13 Cultural
attachment to place, economic opportunities and other human factors
have influenced population mobility in small island states as much,
if not more than environmental factors.14 In Kiribati and Fiji,
spiritual beliefs, traditional gov- ernance mechanisms and
short-term approaches to planning have undermined adaptation
measures.15
Ultimately, future displacement will be influenced by cli- mate
change and environmental degradation and how hu- mans choose to
address the processes. There is, however, still a great deal of
uncertainty about the possible extent of climate change impacts,
and even more about how humans will respond to them.
+
+ +
+
+
+- -
Climate change impacts
Population Displaced population
End of displacement
16
Box 2.2: Dynamics and evacuation patterns associated with
rapid-onset hazards
National and local authorities have the primary respon- sibility
for implementing evacuations as a protective meas- ure. Given that
fleeing quickly from the dangers inherent in a rapidly unfolding
disaster can be highly risky, especially when large numbers of
people are involved, such evacua- tions should be well prepared for
in advance, including the identification of safe refuge
areas.
People with limited mobility because of age, illness or disability
or sickness, and children who become separated from their carers
require particular attention to ensure that they are adequately
protected.24
Evacuations are normally undertaken on the assumption that they
will be short-lived, but return depends on the effects of a
disaster in home areas and prospects for recovery. To respect human
rights and be lawful, authorities must ensure the safety and health
of those affected or at risk, and all measures must be taken to
minimise the scale and duration of displacement and its adverse
effects.25
Well-executed evacuations of people living in exposed ar- eas are a
vital life-saving measure.26 Governments worldwide have recognised
the importance of effective early warning systems to monitor
threats and ensure that timely notice is given to all those
potentially exposed.27 Evacuations must also take into account the
nature of different hazards, which do much to determine the timing
and dynamics of initial displacement patterns.
In the case of tropical storms, evacuations tend to take place over
the hours and sometimes days before they are
expected to make landfall, and/or over similar timescales
afterwards. The onset of hurricanes and cyclones can be pre- dicted
in time to allow for prior large-scale evacuations, but they may
change strength and direction at the last minute.
Tornadoes often develop with little warning, so sheltering in situ,
often underground, tends to be the safest option. In such cases,
people can still become displaced in the storm’s aftermath if they
lose their homes or the devastation to their communities is so
widespread that they are forced to move elsewhere, at least
temporarily.
Tsunami warnings provide exposed populations with vital time to
flee to higher ground. This may be a matter of minutes to hours,
depending on how close they are to an undersea earthquake’s
epicentre.28 Earthquakes and flash floods give little or no notice
of their onset, meaning that evacuations take place during or after
their initial impact. In contrast, early warnings of volcanic
activity often allow people to evacuate under less time pressure,
but the exact moment of an erup- tion is difficult to predict. This
may mean that evacuees are displaced for weeks, or that they are
allowed to return only to be evacuated again at a later date.
Periods of heavy seasonal rainfall and riverine and storm- related
floods often affect heavily populated low-lying and coastal areas.
As they evolve, they may prompt successive waves of evacuations
over weeks and months, which also makes it difficult to distinguish
between one disaster and the next. We identified examples of all
these dynamics among the displacements reported in 2014, the
largest of which in both absolute and relative terms are discussed
in section four.
question. The human exploitation and mismanagement of the planet’s
natural resources is an important factor in many disasters. The
decision to dam or divert water in response to heavy rainfall and
flood risk may have immediate impacts on displacement, for example.
In slowly devel- oping and long-lasting situations, it is less
likely that a specific hazard can be singled out as the main driver
of displacement (see Afghanistan spotlight in section four). Models
developed by IDMC and Climate Interactive also show that the
frequency of drought in the Horn of Africa is a less significant
factor in undermining pastoral- ists’ livelihoods and driving their
displace- ment than other issues, such as changes in government
policy.20 Emphasising the natural aspect of hazards distracts from
the role of human activity in the disasters and displacement they
cause.21 As such, an over-emphasis on hazards themselves can be
politically, practically and methodo- logically problematic.
At the same time, anthropogenic cli- mate change is expected to
increase the intensity and frequency of certain weather-related
hazards and the vulner- ability of some populations as their land
and livelihoods become uninhabitable.22 The best scientific
knowledge available makes clear the urgency of action to both
mitigate global warming and adapt to its human impacts, including
displacement.23
The complex relationship between slow-onset hazards and
displacement as- sociated with climate change is discussed further
in box 2.1.
Patterns of movement Following their initial displacement,
people’s trajectories are often com- plex, a fact seen at both the
individual and community level, and within and among households. It
is not unusual for displaced people to move a number of times,
whether in response to threats or
opportunities that arise over time as they seek to end the
insecurity and uncertainty of their displacement and re-establish
their homes and livelihoods. The ability to move to where
assistance is available may indicate resilience. Governments and
humanitarian organisations may relocate people from initial shelter
sites or evacua- tion centres to more secure shelter when it
becomes clearer that displacement is likely to last longer than
expected.
Movements in response to new threats to their safety and security
in their places of refuge, however, may constitute sec- ondary
displacement. Threats may in- clude exposure to further natural
hazards as a camp becomes flooded, for example, or through exposure
to gender-based vio- lence or forced eviction. Chronic displace-
ment, whether long-lasting, in repeated cycles or both, undermines
people’s re- silience and makes them more vulnerable over
time.29
16 Global Estimates 2015
Repeated and frequent displacement Repeated cycles of displacement
are
frequently observed in countries and areas exposed to natural
hazards (see maps in section 3 for example). Contrary to common
assumptions, the early return of people to their homes does not
neces- sarily indicate the end of their displace- ment. If recovery
is beyond the means of displaced families and the risk of further
disaster and displacement is not reduced, it does not constitute a
safe and sustain- able solution.
Long-lasting and protracted displacement
Long-lasting and protracted displace- ment following disasters,
especially rapid- onset disasters, is more prevalent than commonly
assumed30 as shown by evi- dence presented in section 5 and annex C
of this report. At the same time, the global data presented in this
report does not fol- low the hundreds of new displacements
identified each year to track how long people remain displaced for,
what their needs are during displacement nor what obstacles they
face to achieving durable solutions. Knowledge about the duration
of displacement following disasters is ad hoc and unconsolidated,
as is more de- tailed identification and analysis of cases of
particular concern.31 This constitutes an important gap that we
have started to address more systematically as discussed in section
5.
Definitions of protracted displacement vary across different
organisations and perspectives and depend on the purpose and
context in which the term is applied. They commonly include an
element of time as well as a notion of limbo or un- certainty for
people facing significant obstacles to achieving solutions to their
displacement and for whom progress is slow or stalled.32 The length
of time that people remain displaced can vary greatly according to
the specific context, and thresholds applied for the purpose of
sta- tistical analysis or research will tend to be arbitrary.33
UNHCR data on displacement related to conflict applies the term to
situ- ations that have been ongoing for at least five years,34
though it may be argued that many situations become protracted be-
fore that point. Length of time displaced is insufficient in itself
as an indicator of the
their displacement or how many settle abroad. Evidence gathered by
the Nansen Initiative on cross-border displacement is strongest for
people displaced across borders in Africa in relation to drought
and floods, and in the Americas in re- lation to earthquakes and
hurricanes in particular. Examples from Asia are more rare, though
disasters and environmental degradation have been linked to people
migrating abroad (see the case in sec- tion 5 from Bangladesh).
Little evidence has been found of such displacement or migration
from Europe.39 As sea lev- els continue to rise it is expected that
a significant portion of the populations of small island countries
and low-lying countries with extensive coastlines will be forced to
move abroad also.40
A durable solution to displacement is achieved a) when IDPs have
found a settlement option through re-establishing their homes where
they lived before the disaster, through integrating locally in the
areas where they have been displaced to, or through relocating and
integrating elsewhere in the country, b) when they no longer have
specific assistance and protection needs linked to their displace-
ment, and c) when they can exercise their human rights without
discrimination.41
Whichever settlement option dis- placed people choose to pursue,
they often face continuing problems and risks that require support
beyond the acute phase of a disaster. Achieving a durable solution
is a gradual and complex process that needs timely and coordinated
efforts to address humanitarian, development and human rights
concerns.
As such, an effective response to displacement requires IDPs’ basic
needs for immediate protection and assistance to be met in tandem
with longer-term processes to ensure that solutions are durable.
Such an approach should in- clude measures that reduce the risk of
further disaster and repeated displace- ment, wherever people
choose and are able to settle.42
Further explanation of terms can be found in the methodological
notes in an- nex A.
severity of the situation. For the purpose of the preliminary
research presented in this report, we have used a temporal value to
set the parameters of our analysis. The minimum duration of one
year was ap- plied as a timeframe commonly assumed for the
emergency response phase fol- lowing rapid-onset disaster, and
within which displaced people are expected to have returned to
their homes. This and other assumptions are also discussed in
section 5.
Displacement in terms of distance moved
The distance people flee from their homes should not be taken as an
indica- tor of the severity of people’s situations while displaced.
How far they move is de- termined by a variety of factors,
including whether areas near their homes are safe and accessible,
and best able to access assistance, be it from family and friends,
the government or other providers.
Staying as close to their homes as possible is a common strategy
that ena- bles displaced people to maintain their social networks,
protect their property and register their need for emergency
assistance. It may also, however, be the result of a lack of better
options or be- cause physical, financial, social or political
obstacles prevent them from moving fur- ther afield.35 People in
such situations are in essence both displaced and trapped,36 and as
such they should be among those included for humanitarian
assistance and protection, particularly in the aftermath of a
disaster that has caused significant destruction.
Internal and cross-border displacement The vast majority of people
who flee
disasters remain within their country of residence. As set out in
the Guiding Prin- ciples on Internal Displacement, they are
described as internally displaced people (IDPs).37 At the same
time, in some re- gions substantial numbers of displaced people
seek protection and assistance abroad.38 The global data on which
this report is based covers only the incidence of displacement, and
not where displaced people flee to or where they eventually settle.
As such, it does not allow us to quantify how many people may have
crossed an international border during
172 | Conceptualising displacement in the context of
disasters
Mount Kelud’s eruption in Indonesia displaced thousands and killed
at least seven people. Photo: IRIN/ Contributor, February
2014
18 Global Estimates 2015
Variance from year to year The significant fluctuation from year to
year in the number of people forced to flee their homes by
disasters is driven by relatively infrequent but huge events that
displace millions of people at a time.
Displacement trend from 1970 to 2014 Latest historical models
suggest that even after adjusting for population growth, the
likelihood of being displaced by a disaster today is 60 per cent
higher than it was four decades ago.
1998 was a peak year for displacement, which correlates with the
strongest it- eration of El Niño on record. Extreme weather events
associated with it in- cluded hurricane Mitch, which devastat- ed
several countries in Central America.
Trends in exposure and vulnerability The occurrence of displacement
closely mirrors people’s exposure to hazards around the world.
Exposure is increas- ing because ever growing numbers of vulnerable
people live in areas prone to hazards
Two key drivers of exposure and vulner- ability are urban
population growth in developing countries, and economic
growth
The urban population in developing countries has increased by 326
per cent since 1970. This rapid growth has for the most part been
unplanned and poorly governed, leading to high exposure and
vulnerability. Middle-income countries bear the brunt of the
phenomenon
People in low-income countries are more vulnerable still , but
relatively fewer people are exposed to hazards. That said,
population projections sug- gest that exposure will increase in
many low-income countries over the coming decades.
The relatively low vulnerability of high- income countries does not
mean that they are not affected. Around 1.8 million people were
displaced in high-income countries in 2014, and this is explained
by three factors: » All countries are vulnerable to the
most extreme hazards » Inequality within high-income coun-
tries makes displacement a particu- lar concern for people less
well off and those subject to discrimination and
marginalisation
» Effective early warning systems and disaster responses save
lives, but in- crease displacement among survivors as a protective
measure
Scale, patterns and trends thE GLoBAL PICtUrE
Key findings and messages
Latest estimates More than 19 3 million people were dis- placed by
disasters in 100 countries in 2014
Since 2008, an average of 26 4 million people have been displaced
by disas- ters each year - equivalent to one per- son every
second.
Displacement by hazard type 17 5 million people were displaced by
disasters brought on by weather-related hazards in 2014, and 1 7
million by geo- physical hazards.
An average of 22 5 million people have been displaced each year by
climate or weather-related disasters in the last seven years -
equivalent to 62,000 peo- ple every day.
The largest increases in displacement are related to weather and
climate-re- lated hazards, and floods in particular.
Climate change, in tandem with peo- ple’s increasing exposure and
vulner- ability, is expected to magnify this trend, as extreme
weather events become more frequent and intense in the com- ing
decades.
3
3.1 The latest estimates Disasters brought on by weather-
related and geophysical hazards forced more than 19.3 million
people to leave their homes in 2014 (see figure 3.1). This estimate
is based on 695 new displace- ment events in 100 countries (see
global map on the inside cover).
Since 2008, an average of 26.4 million people have been displaced
by disasters each year - equivalent to one person dis- placed every
second.
3.2 Displacement by type of hazard
In 2014, disasters associated with weather hazards, mostly floods
and storms, displaced more than 17.5 million people, or 92 per cent
of the global to- tal. Storms were responsible for a higher than
average share of total displacement (see figure 3.2). The Atlantic
hurricane season was relatively quiet, but the Pa- cific produced
the highest ever number of storms ranked category four or higher,
and equalled the modern record for the number of storms overall in
a single sea- son.1
Most of the largest displacements in 2014 were associated with
weather- related hazards. The three largest were caused by typhoons
and floods in the Philippines and India (see table 3.1). Eight of
the 20 largest disasters of the year were triggered by typhoons or
tropical storms in Asia (see figure 4.4).
Since 2008, an average of 22.5 million people have been displaced
by climate- or weather-related disasters. This is equiva- lent to
62,000 people every day.
Climate change, on top of increasing exposure and vulnerability, is
expected to exacerbate this trend further as the inten- sity and
frequency of extreme weather hazards increases in coming
decades.2
Disasters related to geophysical haz- ards, primarily earthquakes
and volcanic eruptions, displaced more than 1.7 million people, or
nine per cent of the 2014 total (see figure 3.2). Between 2008 and
2014, only three of the 37 disasters to displace more than a
million people were related to geophysical hazards - the 2008
Sichuan earthquake in China and the 2010 earth- quakes in Haiti and
Chile.
Figure 3.1: The global scale of displacement caused by disasters,
2008 to 2014
0
10
20
30
40
50
43% 15.8m
9% 1.5m 8% 1.1m 2% 0.7m 8% 1.8m10% 4.0m 14% 26.7m
57% 20.8m
91% 15.3m
90% 38.3m
92% 13.9m
98% 31.7m
92% 20.4m
9% 1.7m
91% 17.5m
86% 157.8m
Pe op
le d
isp la
ce d
(m illi
on s)
Pe op
le d
isp la
ce d
(m illi
on s)
Average, 26.4m
Note: Differences in totals are due to rounding of figures to the
nearest decimal point. Source: IDMC data as of 1 June 2015
Displacements of fewer than 100,000 people made up 95.4 per cent of
the events recorded in 2014, but only 17 per cent of the total
number displaced (see figure 3.3b). A third of all events were very
small, displacing fewer than 100 people each, and their
contribution to the global total was negligible. At the same time,
it should be noted that small events tend to be poorly reported in
most countries and their true number is probably much higher.
3.3 Variance from year to year As can be seen in table 3.1, the
total
number of people displaced varies greatly from year to year,
depending on the fre- quency and size of the largest
disasters.
In 2014, 32 disasters displaced more than 100,000 people, of which
three dis- placed more than a million. Together, those 32 accounted
for 83 per cent of the total (see figure 3.3.b). This pattern was
similar over the last seven-year period. In 2008-2014, 34 disasters
that displaced more than a million people were responsi- ble for
two-thirds of the total (see table 3.1 and figure 3.3.a). Such
large-scale events were less frequent and relatively smaller in
2014, making the total for the year lower than the average of 26.4
million over the seven-year period.
20 Global Estimates 2015
Earthquakes 8% 1.5m
Floods 43% 8.3m
Storms 48% 9.1m
Storms 48% 9.1m
Floods 55% 102m
Extreme temperatures
Dry mass movements
Wet mass movements
2014 2008 - 2014
Note: figures rounded to nearest 1,000 or 100,000 Source: IDMC data
as of 1 June 2015
Table 3.1: Annual variance in disasters displacing more than a
million people, 2008 to 2014
Year Very large and mega events
Displaced (millions) Hazard Country
2008 8 1.7 - 15.0 Earthquake, floods (4), storms (3) China (2)
India (3), Myanmar, Philippines, US
2009 3 1.6 - 2.5 Flood, cyclones (2) China, India (2)
2010 7 1.0 - 15.2 Floods (5), earthquakes (2) Chile, China,
Colombia (2), Haiti, Pakistan, Thailand
2011 2 1.5 - 3.5 Floods (2) China, Thailand
2012 8 1.4 - 6.9 Floods (5), storms (3) China (2), India (2),
Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines (2)
2013 6 1.0 - 4.1 Floods (2), storms (4) Bangladesh, China, India
(2), Philippines (2)
2014 3 1.1 - 3.0 Storms (2), flood India, Philippines (2)
Figure 3.3: Displacement by scale of event
0
20
40
60
80
100
2014201320122011201020092008
Pe rc
en ta
ge s
Note: All percentages are rounded. Source: IDMC data as of 1 June
2015
a) 2008-2014: Proportion of total displaced per year by event
size
41%
39%
7%
13%
40%
53%
Very large events (1 - 3 million displaced)
Mega events (>3 million displaced)
Very small to medium events (fewer than 100,000 displaced)
b) 2014: Displacement by event size compared with number of events
at different scales
ii. Eventsi. People displaced
95.4% 663 events
213 | The global picture: scales, patterns and trends
Meanwhile, its latest iteration already provides a reasonable
approximation of the general historical trend and some vali- dation
of expected displacement patterns that are also reflected in our
data for 2008 to 2014 (see annex A.2).
Latest findings show that the total number of people displaced in
2014, though lower than the average for the past seven years, is
part of a longer-term upward trend in displacement since
1970.
Even adjusting for population growth, the average amount of
displacement as- sociated with disasters has increased by 60 per
cent in a little over four decades. (see figure 3.4.a).3
This is driven mostly by the increas- ing concentration of people
in exposed locations, combined with their growing
3.4 Displacement trend from 1970 to 2014
IDMC has used probabilistic model- ling to generate coarse-grained
displace- ment estimates going back to 1970. We continue to develop
the model, with a recent focus on increasing the size of our data
sample for the calibration of the estimates.
The model is dependent on the quality and availability of global
data. A number of important caveats should be kept in mind.
Firstly, the sample sizes are too small to make inferences about
individual coun- tries. Secondly, extreme hazards occur rel-
atively infrequently. Those that occur once every 100, 500 or 1,000
years are unlikely to be captured in four decades of data and by
their very nature, they are hard to quantify.
Figure 3.4: Modelled global displacement trend for 1970 to 2014
(per million inhabitants)
Pe op
le d
isp la
ce d
Source: IDMC data as of 1 June 2015
vulnerability.4 More frequent and intense extreme weather events
associated with climate change are expected to accentu- ate the
trend.5
Data behind the modelled trend also shows large variations year to
year. This includes a peak in 1998, when almost twice as many
people were displaced than in any other since 1970. This is fur-
ther discussed in box 3.1.
22 Global Estimates 2015
Box 3.1: “Super” El Niño and displacement in 1998 - a year of
extremes This year, the planet has entered a new climatic period
characterised by above average sea surface temperatures in
the
eastern and east-central Pacific Ocean. This natural phenomenon is
known as the El Niño Southern Oscillation. It occurs at irregular
intervals of two to seven years and lasts for nine months to two
years, and it has a significant effect on patterns of extreme
weather and climate-related disasters.6 There is no consensus on
how iterations of El Niño will change as the global climate warms,
but studies suggest that they are becoming more intense.7
The strongest El Niño ever recorded occurred in 1997 and 1998.8 It
ended suddenly in the first half of 1998 and was followed by a
period of below average sea surface temperatures known as La Niña.9
Severe floods in Asia, an abnormally active tropical storm season
in the Atlantic basin, hurricanes in Central America and the
Caribbean and other events all caused major displacements (see
table 3.2).
Table 3.2: Large displacement events in 1998
Country Disaster Number of people displaced
China Summer floods across several wide areas, including the
South-central Yangtze river basin
14 million10
India June to August floods across 12 northern states Eight
million
Dominican Republic Hurricane Georges, flooding and landslides
865,00011
Honduras Hurricane Mitch, flooding and landslides 2.1
million12
The scale of displacement in the countries affected also had much
to do with pre-existing patterns of development and disaster risk,
and long-lasting displacement helped to increase this risk further
in some cases. Honduras is a case in point.
In Honduras, more than 440,000 people lost their homes to hurricane
Mitch, and a year later 20,000 were still living in shelters.13
Hundreds of families did so for up to four years, and though
information is scarce and patchy, a number of people were reported
as still displaced ten years after Mitch struck.14
Some returned to their places of origin and rebuilt their homes
using inadequate materials, continuing their exposure and
vulnerability to future disasters. For others, return was not an
option because of the extent of the devastation. Twenty- five
communities whose villages were completely destroyed by land and
mudslides relocated permanently elsewhere.15
The town of Morolica was one of the worst affected. A new town was
built for its former residents five kilometres away, and seven per
cent of the population relocated to urban areas or abroad.16
Mitch’s impacts were made worse by decades of unsustainable
development and land use, and the poor design and location of
public and private infrastructure. Honduras did not have a legal
framework for land-use planning and building regulations until
2002. Poor preparedness and early warning measures, and the
government’s inadequate responses to the disaster were also
factors.
Half of the country’s population was living in extreme poverty
before Mitch struck, and for some their level of poverty increased
in its aftermath.17 Disasters have in the region also tend to
increase food insecurity, and displaced families in Honduras
suffered a serious nutritional crisis after the hurricane.18
In recognition of the country’s high exposure to natural hazards
and the links between environmental degradation, high poverty
levels and increased vulnerability to disasters, the government has
committed to strengthening existing legal and institutional
frameworks to improve disaster risk management. The challenges to
implementation, however, are great.
As a new El Niño episode continues in 2015, how many people will be
displaced by weather-related disasters and where is unknown. It is
not even certain that the phenomenon will play out as it has in the
past. What is certain, however, is that there are now many more
people living in hazard-prone areas around the world that may be
affected. No matter how hazards manifest as a result of El Niño,
changes in exposure and vulnerability have already increased the
risk of disasters and displacement.
233 | The global picture: scales, patterns and trends
3.5 Trends in exposure and vulnerability
Displacement patterns are determined by countries’ exposure and
vulnerability to natural hazards. Hazard patterns at the global
level have not changed significant- ly over the relatively short
period covered by our displacement data, but exposure and
vulnerability are constantly shifting.
Population growth in hazard-prone areas, particularly urban centres
in developing countries
Significantly more people are exposed to hazards and affected by
disasters to- day than in 1970, and more people are becoming
displaced as a result. The pri- mary reason for these increases is
that more vulnerable people are living in areas prone to hazards
than ever before.
Population exposure data indicates how many people reside in areas
that have historically experienced floods, storms, landslides,
earthquakes or other hazards. Global exposure data is shown on map
3.1 below. As will be seen in sec- tion 4, the distribution of
displacement closely mirrors population exposure.
This data indicates how many people are exposed at a particular
point in time, but it does not explain how things came to be the
way they are. For that we need to understand the processes and
historical factors that drive exposure, including eco- nomic and
population growth, particularly in urban areas.
growth rate of urban populations in de- veloping countries has
grown faster still (326 per cent increase). In Haiti, Niger,
Nigeria and South Sudan, for example, the urban population has more
than dou- bled since 2000.
Most modern urban centres were founded centuries ago based on
consid- erations of defence, agricultural viability and transport.
These factors drove hu- mans to settle in areas prone to haz- ards,
along coasts and rivers, on flood plains and in seismically active
areas. When urban growth in such areas is well managed, the risk of
displacement may increase only modestly. In many devel- oping
countries, however, urban growth has been rapid, unplanned and
poorly governed, leading to high exposure and vulnerability.
Map 3.1: Global population exposure to natural hazards
Note: The UN International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction
(UNISDR) exposure data refers to the population as of July 2011
with a resolution of 30” (approx. 1 km at equator), which has been
adjusted to match with UN official data using World Population
Prospects. Source: UNISDR 2015
Table 3.3: Global population trends 1970 2014 Percentage
increase
World population 3.7 billion 7.24 billion 96%
Urban population 1.35 billion 3.88 billion 187%
Urban population in developing countries 0.68 billion 2.9 billion
326%
Source: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2014
As shown in table 3.3, the global pop- ulation has grown by 96 per
cent since 1970. Urban populations have grown twice as fast (187
per cent increase) and the
Average no. of people exposed per pixel
* No Data 1.1 140
24 Global Estimates 2015
While more resilient families may be able to manage their exposure
to less in- tense hazards such as seasonal floods or small
earthquakes, these events can be a significant burden for the
poorest families who have few resources to prepare for and recover
from them and prevent their recurrence. For example, large numbers
of people in the Philippines, India, Nige- ria and other countries
live in coastal or riverine floodplains.
Settlement in these areas is due to their close proximity to
livelihood opportunities and the lack of available land in safer
ar- eas. In this precarious situation, they are exposed and
vulnerable to frequent flood- ing and, due to the lack of viable
alterna- tives, often choose to return to the same area after
having been displaced during a disaster. Their situation becomes
even more acute when displacement is repeated and frequent,
potentially trapping them in a cycle of chronic poverty and
disaster risk.19
Economic growth Developing countries accounted for
91 per cent of global displacement in 2014 and 95 per cent over the
seven-year pe- riod (see figure 3.5). Among developing countries,
the link between economic development and displacement is under-
scored by the fact that most displacement occurs in middle-income
rather than low-
income countries. Lower middle-income countries make up 36 per cent
of the world’s population, but accounted for 61 per cent of
displacement in 2014 and 46.8 per cent between 2008 and 2014. Low-
income countries were also significantly affected, with around 1.4
million people displaced in 2014 and 16.7 million people between
2008 and 2014 (see figure 3.5).
Figure 3.5: Global displacement and population by World Bank income
group
2008-2014 2014
Upper middle income
7.3% 1.4m 12% 0.8b
Note: Figures are rounded to the nearest decimal point Source: IDMC
data as of 1 June 2015
Developing countries
Figure 3.6 shows that displacement levels between 2008-2014 have
been par- ticularly high in middle-income countries in east Asia
and the Pacific and south Asia. A similar pattern emerges when it
is viewed relative to countries’ HDI rank- ings. Most displacement
takes place in countries in the third and fourth quintiles, and
comparatively little in those with the highest and lowest levels of
human de- velopment (see figure 3.7).
Exposure has increased more quickly than vulnerability has been
reduced. The urban population boom in middle-income countries means
that rapidly increasing numbers of people are exposed to haz- ards,
and many of them remain vulner- able. A roughly equal number of
people in Japan and the Philippines are exposed to typhoons, for
example. However, as this report has shown, the Philippines experi-
ences much higher levels of displacement because its exposed
population is more vulnerable to this hazard.
People in low-income countries are more vulnerable still and
relatively less exposed. They account for less of the global
population and have not yet seen the rates of growth of
middle-income countries. That said, population projec- tions
suggest that exposure will increase in many low-income countries
over the coming decades, particularly in Africa.
Japan and high-income countries in Europe and North America all
have large populations exposed to hazards but relatively low levels
of displacement. Nevertheless, some high-income coun- tries have
significant absolute levels of displacement, with 1.8